• boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Sports, kinda. It’s possible to go unrewarded with them, but it’s very hard to go rewarded without them.

      If you mean economic system, not really. Capitalism rewards having capital over everything else, communism (if we ignore the flawed attempts and go for theory) rewards everyone equally irrelevant of how hard you work or what your skills are. Though being skilled in something that’s actually pleasant as a job is a reward in itself as you won’t have to work manual labour.

    • FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Guild Economics, where you only ascend to leadership with experience in your trade. I don’t like the idea that some kid out of university could be assigned manager of an industry they didn’t even study for. Realistically, 90% of the workforce does not need to have gone to uni and we could reorganise society around apprenticeships instead.

        • FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 minutes ago

          Wow who would have thought the research in current regime would indicate that current regime is correct! You can tell the research is unbiased because it was published by current regime. Only in current regime can research be unbiased, thank god for current regime.

    • OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      If you try to do that you need metrics for evaluation and then you get people gaming the metrics. One example is academia.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        You would think, but actually there’s been some recent research that I think has interesting conclusions. The example, which is semi-related, is performance as a manager. When promoted using merit based, people tended to perform worse bcz they are promoted based on past performance in unrelated roles. When promoted randomly, the people who excelled at being a manager stayed in that position, and outperformed others who were promoted based on merit.

        The point being, you don’t know who’s going to be good at something based on past performance in unrelated roles. We’ve built an entire system based on that concept, and it’s not really that surprising that it doesn’t work that well. If I can find the research article again, I’ll link it.

        Edit: found it